People v. Velarde CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. BPR2400698
- Trial judge
- Sylwia Luttrell
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Joan K. Irion (author), O'Rourke, Laurence D. Rubin
Analysis
The trial court found Velarde in violation of parole for failing to report to the parole office and sentenced him to 101 days in custody. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Parole violation finding and 101-day custody sentence“The parole officer was not required to impose an intermediate sanction. Under section 3010.10, when a person required to register as a sex offender fails to timely report to his parole officer after release from custody, the parole officer “shall revoke the person’s parole . . . ,” unless the officer “finds that in the interest of justice [revocation] is not appropriate in a particular case . . . .”” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the mandatory revocation standard of Penal Code section 3010.10, which requires revocation for sex offenders who fail to report unless an interest of justice exception applies. The court properly determined that the trial court's exercise of discretion to deny intermediate sanctions was supported by the defendant's history of violations and non-compliance, satisfying the statutory framework. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the requirement for appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record when no arguable issues are identified, and for the court to perform its own review.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to notify the court of their inability to find merit, allowing the court to review the record independently.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a case where counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court's substantive analysis correctly applies the mandatory revocation statute for sex offenders and validates the trial court's discretion to deny intermediate sanctions based on the defendant's history.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court found Mark Anthony Velarde in violation of parole under Penal Code section 3056 after he failed to report to his parole officer following release from custody, sentenced him to 101 days in custody, and reinstated parole on the prior terms. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying one possible issue (whether an intermediate sanction short of revocation was required); the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding that Velarde violated parole (Pen. Code, § 3056) and imposition of a 101-day custodial sanction with reinstatement of parole“On July 18, 2024, the trial court found Velarde in violation of the terms of his parole (§ 3056); sentenced him to 101 days in custody, resulting in a release date the next day; and reinstated parole supervision on the terms and conditions previously imposed.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites undisputed facts: Velarde was released May 28, 2024, failed to report to the parole office as required, a warrant issued the next day, and he was arrested the day after. Failure to report is a straightforward violation of parole conditions, and nothing in the opinion suggests any evidentiary or procedural defect in the revocation hearing. The 101-day term fell within the custodial sanction framework and resulted in release the next day. |
Rejection of the Anders issue that the parole officer was required to impose an intermediate sanction short of revocation“The parole officer was not required to impose an intermediate sanction.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court construed section 3010.10, which it read as mandating revocation when a sex offender registrant fails to timely report after release unless the officer finds revocation inappropriate in the interest of justice, and also found the officer in fact considered intermediate sanctions under section 3000.08, subdivision (f) and rule 4.541(e) and reasonably rejected them given Velarde's repeated violations. Even setting the mandatory-revocation reading aside, the alternative finding that intermediate sanctions were considered and reasonably rejected independently supports the result. I cannot verify the precise text of section 3010.10 from the opinion alone, but the quoted language and the alternative ground make the conclusion defensible. |
Independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record finding no arguable issues and that counsel competently represented Velarde“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issues brief, made diligent efforts to notify a homeless client, the court gave notice through trial counsel and the last known address, and the court independently reviewed the record and addressed the one issue counsel flagged. Whether Wende review is constitutionally required in an appeal from a parole revocation order (as opposed to a first appeal of right from a conviction) is not discussed, but conducting the review anyway cannot prejudice the defendant. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, counsel may file a brief so stating, the defendant must be notified and given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and the reviewing court must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and may refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court decides whether the case is wholly frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure, documents counsel's diligent efforts to notify a homeless client, and disposes of the sole flagged issue on two independent grounds (mandatory revocation under section 3010.10 and the officer's actual consideration of intermediate sanctions under section 3000.08, subdivision (f) and rule 4.541(e)). It does not address whether independent Wende review is required in an appeal from a postjudgment parole revocation order, but that omission favored the defendant and does not affect the result.
Opinion
Filed 9/17/25 P. v. Velarde CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D084669
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. BPR2400698)
MARK ANTHONY VELARDE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Sylwia Luttrell, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In July 2024, the trial court found Mark Anthony Velarde in violation of the terms of his parole (Pen. Code,1 § 3056) and sentenced him to 101 days in custody. He filed a timely notice of appeal.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating appellate counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Appellate counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Because Velarde is homeless, appellate counsel declared he made a diligent effort to locate Velarde and provide the notice required by Wende. (See id. at pp. 439, 442.) Appellate counsel has been unable to locate Velarde, and Velarde has not responded to notices appellate counsel and this court have provided to him in care of his trial counsel and at his last known address. STATEMENT OF FACTS In January 2023, Velarde sustained a conviction for providing harmful matter to a minor. (§ 288.2, subd. (a)(2).) The trial court sentenced him to two years in prison and required him to register as a sex offender. He was released on parole on June 14, 2023. Since his original release date, he has violated the terms of his parole multiple times. On May 28, 2024, Velarde was released from custody after serving 34 days of a 109-day sentence for a parole violation. He failed to report to the parole office as required by the terms of his release, and, on May 29, 2024, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. Parole officers arrested him the next day. On July 18, 2024, the trial court found Velarde in violation of the terms of his parole (§ 3056); sentenced him to 101 days in custody, resulting in a release date the next day; and reinstated parole supervision on the terms and conditions previously imposed. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel 2 has identified one possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: was Velarde’s parole officer required to impose an intermediate sanction short of revocation? We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. The parole officer was not required to impose an intermediate sanction. Under section 3010.10, when a person required to register as a sex offender fails to timely report to his parole officer after release from custody, the parole officer “shall revoke the person’s parole . . . ,” unless the officer “finds that in the interest of justice [revocation] is not appropriate in a particular case . . . .” (§ 3010.10, subds. (a) & (d).) Velarde’s parole officer adequately considered intermediate sanctions under the applicable statutory framework (§ 3000.08 subd. (f); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.541(e)), and properly found an intermediate sanction was not appropriate in this case given Velarde’s history of parole violations and failure to comply with the parole agency’s prior assistance. Competent counsel has represented Velarde on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12